Talk:Unite the Right rally: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Talk:Unite the Right rally/Archive 6) (bot |
|||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
:::I also don't see how it is encyclopedic. How does color or say hatchback vs sedan matter? [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC) |
:::I also don't see how it is encyclopedic. How does color or say hatchback vs sedan matter? [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::Ok, I have restored the pre-detailed version. I get that the OP is enthusiastic about this crash chain of events, given this and earlier conversations above, but this just wasn't a net positive. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB|talk]]) 19:20, 30 August |
::::Ok, I have restored the pre-detailed version. I get that the OP is enthusiastic about this crash chain of events, given this and earlier conversations above, but this just wasn't a net positive. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB|talk]]) 19:20, 30 August 20 |
||
:::::Valarian regardless of two circumstantial cheers you had no grounds for removing the information. Sources were provided. Individual Wikipedians' personal dislike for the presentation of facts are not grounds to exclude them. Abusing reversion and dogpiling onto a topic to promote vague and hazy accounts of events when we have more details is what is contrary to the goals of encyclopedia. [[User:ScratchMarshall|ScratchMarshall]] ([[User talk:ScratchMarshall|talk]]) 16:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Censoring the gray/white/red colors does not make it "more informative" and a few extra words do not make it illegible. Added them back. This is a net positive. I don't buy that any of you are having trouble reading this because of a couple adjectives. You all seem intelligent and collected. Is aesthetics your last refuge for trying to keep information out? [[User:ScratchMarshall|ScratchMarshall]] ([[User talk:ScratchMarshall|talk]]) 03:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC) |
Censoring the gray/white/red colors does not make it "more informative" and a few extra words do not make it illegible. Added them back. This is a net positive. I don't buy that any of you are having trouble reading this because of a couple adjectives. You all seem intelligent and collected. Is aesthetics your last refuge for trying to keep information out? [[User:ScratchMarshall|ScratchMarshall]] ([[User talk:ScratchMarshall|talk]]) 03:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:39, 3 September 2017
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unite the Right rally article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 days ![]() |
![]() | A news item involving Unite the Right rally was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 August 2017. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unite the Right rally article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 days ![]() |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Unite the Right rally. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Unite the Right rally at the Reference desk. |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Color of other 2 vehicles
I believe these are useful additions to put in to supplement the "gray" challenger, knowing the color of all 3 vehicles allows people to better match up discussion of them with the images/video of the scene. I managed to find a source discussing the color of the minivan:
- "Charlottesville, Va.: Drone video shows chain reaction after a car plowed into pedestrians". KLEW-TV. 13 August 2017.
This drone video provided by CNN Newsource illuminates the chain reaction as the car -- registered to suspect James Alexander Fields, Jr. -- plowed into the crowd, killing a 32-year-old woman and pushing the red minivan pictured in the footage into a crowd of pedestrians.
I'd like to know if anyone knows alternative sources. I found a discussion forum saying the sedan was white (my first instinct too, looking at the footage) but it described the minivan as purple instead of red, and anyway, forums don't work as sources.
Hoping we could find someone besides KLEW reporting on this, it's pretty simple/basic info to enhance description of the Challenger>Sedan>Minivan event, if people can also envision it as Gray>White>Red.
Edit: part of the confusion here is that it seems like the 2010 Dodge Challenger might be a sedan? I found a couple of the sources which describe the ramming car as a sedan, as opposed to the car the driver hit:
- Tesfaye, Sophia (12 August 2017). "UPDATED: Terror in Charlottesville: Woman killed as car rams into anti-racist protesters at white nationalist rally". Salon.com.
After the rally at a city park was dispersed on Saturday afternoon, following a series of skirmishes between competing bands of protesters, a gray sedan drove directly through a crowd of counter-protesters near Charlottesville's downtown mall.
- Gunderman, Dan (14 August 2017). "Alex Jones attributes Charlottesville unrest to 'Jewish actors' meant to silence far-right". New York Daily News.
James Fields Jr., who is reportedly a neo-Nazi white supremacist, plowed a gray sedan through a crowd of counter-protesters in the Virginia college town
Another source says it was a SILVER sedan which backed over people:
- "Trump condemns 'hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides' in Charlottesville". WPTZ. 14 August 2017.
Matt Korbon, a 22-year-old University of Virginia student, said counter-protesters were marching when "suddenly there was just this tire screeching sound." A silver sedan smashed into another car, then backed up, plowing through "a sea of people."
Dodge_Challenger#2009_model_year has pictures of a couple 2010 models, the "2010 Dodge Detonator Challenger R/T Classic" and "2010 Dodge Challenger SRT-8" so I'm wondering if we could possibly get a more specific model name for the ramming car? By knowing the specific model it may be clearer whether the Challenger was also a sedan as reported above, in which case we're really talking about a sedan hitting a sedan hitting a minivan, which would make color/model all the more valuable in discerning between them.
Given that some sources have reported the sedan driving/plowing, if it turns out the Challenger was not a sedan I think it would be good to add (not a sedan) after it. If it turns out they are both sedans, we should note the challenger is a sedan and say "another sedan" or "a second sedan" or something like that, to acknowledge there are two.
I'm not familiar enough with cars to be able to just look at the picture and say whether the Challenger was or not (I have no idea what sedan specifications are) but figure if we knew more about the model, sources could explain that.
Update: found another source! Not sure how reputable, seems like a small publication, but it at least makes comment on the colors:
- Rothrock, Millie (15 August 2017). "Rural Retreat graduate injured in Charlottesville". swvatoday.com. Archived from the original on 16 August 2017.
Fields' car rammed into a white car, which then hit a burgundy van.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help)
If the minivan was burgundy (color) this might explain why one source says red but some people are saying purple in forums, as it is "a dark red tending towards purple". I am curious if SWVA Today (appear to be called Community Newspapers of Southwest Virginia) might be important enough a publication to qualify for a Wikipedia article or not, how do we evaluate that? ScratchMarshall (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly, I find this revised text to be now overly-weighed down with detail, making it less readable and informative. We shouldn't, as encyclopedia editors, be repeating excessive detail about this or any event. Describe the events broadly and cite sources so readers can read more if need be. ValarianB (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. ValarianB is right on. Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- I also don't see how it is encyclopedic. How does color or say hatchback vs sedan matter? Doug Weller talk 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. ValarianB is right on. Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, I have restored the pre-detailed version. I get that the OP is enthusiastic about this crash chain of events, given this and earlier conversations above, but this just wasn't a net positive. ValarianB (talk) 19:20, 30 August 20
- Valarian regardless of two circumstantial cheers you had no grounds for removing the information. Sources were provided. Individual Wikipedians' personal dislike for the presentation of facts are not grounds to exclude them. Abusing reversion and dogpiling onto a topic to promote vague and hazy accounts of events when we have more details is what is contrary to the goals of encyclopedia. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, I have restored the pre-detailed version. I get that the OP is enthusiastic about this crash chain of events, given this and earlier conversations above, but this just wasn't a net positive. ValarianB (talk) 19:20, 30 August 20
Censoring the gray/white/red colors does not make it "more informative" and a few extra words do not make it illegible. Added them back. This is a net positive. I don't buy that any of you are having trouble reading this because of a couple adjectives. You all seem intelligent and collected. Is aesthetics your last refuge for trying to keep information out? ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Recent edit
Re: this edit, I concur with the previous editor: "Not 'others'. just national review. not widespread stance." If there are any concerns about this edit, please discuss on Talk. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Isn't it also a bit odd to call antifa an "organization"? ValarianB (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Organizations listed under the Protesters section
Various organizations, specifically the Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia, the New York Light Foot Militia and the Virginia Minute Men have been listed as members of the "Protesters" section. The sources for each of these are (respectively) Rewire.com, TribLive.com, and theguardian.com. Each of those sources fails to state these groups as part of the protesters, but that the groups themselves claimed to be have been present as "neutral" parties. There is probably a place to list these groups (such as "neutral groups") but without a source explicitly stating a group is protesting, it does not belong under this section. I'm removing these groups from this section as "not per sources". I'm seeing conflicting reports about another group, the "Oath Keepers". I think we should review each group mentioned in the entire article to see that they have been identified accurately as possible. I'm not sure how to handle the conflicting reports.
Any suggestions as to what to call these groups? That man from Nantucket (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Good work to pick up on this. I've been doing some reading (the Guardian article is a good one) and watched a few videos including the one by Katie Couric. Still thinking about how to include it... Gandydancer (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class Death articles
- Unknown-importance Death articles
- C-Class Donald Trump articles
- Unknown-importance Donald Trump articles
- WikiProject Donald Trump articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Unknown-importance politics articles
- C-Class American politics articles
- Unknown-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class Virginia articles
- Low-importance Virginia articles
- C-Class University of Virginia articles
- Low-importance University of Virginia articles
- WikiProject University of Virginia articles
- WikiProject Virginia articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English